It is a UK govt. policy to cap the state benefits system so that any family on benefits will receive no more than £26,000 per annum. On the BBC
website one family with 5 children (currently in receipt of some £30,284.80) is used as an example of how that policy would impact the relevant
BBC News - Raymond & Co.
The family spokesman (father and stepfather Raymond) sets out their weekly outgoings which include £20 for his own Friday night out with his mates,
£15 for Sky (How else is he supposed to occupy himself when he's at home all day?), £32 for mobile phones for himself, wife and each of the teenage
children, 200 cigarettes and one large pouch of rolling tobacco (equating to a minimum of £74 per week on tobacco alone) oh....and 24 cans of lager -
every week. (The proposed cap on benefits would reduce his current weekly income by £82.40)
Raymond, who is trained as an educational software designer, claims the work 'dried up' in 2001 . Nevertheless he and his wife decided they should
have their 5th child between them after 6 years on benefits (the child is now 5 yrs old).
Raymond and his family's net benefits of circa £30k actually equates to a working household income of £42,000 gross of tax and NI. Raymond then
claims that if his family's benefits are capped to the £26k proposed that they would be choosing between 'heating or eating'.......or eating or
smoking, drinking, phoning or satellite TV.
Some years ago a friend of mine who had served in the British army in the first Gulf War was pensioned off for health reasons and found himself living
in one of our larger council estates. At the time he observed that Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest was being turned on it's head. His
logic was quite clear and Raymond's family certainly appear to confirm his theories.
Quite simply my friend argued that due to the benefits system families who could not actually afford to feed children were breeding excessively. That
they failed to instil ambition into their kids. That were they to live while adhering to the laws of nature (of the jungle) alone they would be
unable unable to feed their children or themselves and would, by natural selection, simply die out. Instead he said they were outnumbering the rest
of us and taking over.
I found this logic extremely harsh until he pointed out how families on benefits with 3 plus children were comparatively common place in the housing
estate he found himself in - and that in the apparently 'well to do' private housing families in the main restricted themselves to 2 or fewer
children (being all they could afford to pay for).
He further pointed out than in this day and age, in many instances, the benefits families, are part of an intergenerational problem. Their parent/s
had never worked - nor their parent's parents. So, chances are, with Raymond's sense of entitlement to Sky, cigarettes, mobile phones and booze,
that his 5 kids will grow up with a similar attitude becoming 5 more families to receive £42k gross annually from the State (tax payers).
In 3 generations (if all his children emulate him and his 5 children have five children) the Raymond's of this country could be costing the taxpayer
£1,050,000.00 in direct benefits alone (excluding teaching, health, etc.)...ouch!!